45
votes
What are the genuinely worst films of all time?
Inspired by the recent post about "The Last Photograph" by Zack Snyder being awful. It makes me wonder: what are some truly awful films?
I don't mean "so bad they're funny" like Plan 9 from Outer Space my beloved or Birdemic (still laugh at how the most emotion we got from the male lead was telling the female lead "you look fine" right before sex). I also don't mean "awful just because they're racist/offensive/etc." like Birth of a Nation, or propaganda films or films with agendas.
I want to know about truly awful films that are considered just plain bad.
The Rise of Skywalker might not be the technically worst movie ever made, like there are obviously hundreds of talented people that did a good job on it, but as far as money spent to quality, and my own personal level of disgust, it absolutely takes the cake.
It's such a complete dog shit movie. I loved Star Wars as a kid, was really into the books, and I was a teenager when the prequels came out. Attack of the Clones was when I was old enough to realize that the prequels weren't very good movies, and I kinda stopped being a Star Wars fan after that, although I still really liked the original movies and playing some of the games.
With all that said, I wasn't particularly excited for new Star Wars. I watched the force awakens and thought it was a pretty forgettable, whatever movie. Not good, and not interesting, and the plot was stupid, but it kept what you'd expect to happen in a Star Wars movie more or less.
I saw The Last Jedi in theaters and really hated it, so I decided I wasn't going to give Disney any more money related to Star Wars. For one, I don't think it's really that interesting of a setting, and two, they clearly had no idea what they were doing.
I saw the rise of Skywalker on a plane, and whoever was sitting next to me was probably getting annoyed at all the groans of disgust.
Basically everything about it was bad. The plot was stupid and contrived, the characters were unlikable and made no sense, and there was a shoehorned love story smashed into the end of it with a sledgehammer for no reason. I hated almost everything about it, and if I paid money for it and wasn't stuck on an airplane, I would have left the theater halfway through and asked for my money back.
I couldn't believe that a big studio would allow that to be released
No, I will absolutely give you this. The producers at Disney actively were trying to insult the audience with this movie, I felt. They went from a movie that felt like it was developed from barely making a few changes to the storyboard from the first Star Wars movie, to giving the franchise to a talented filmmaker to making a film with themes that actually meant things and had meaningful messages, back to a bunch of events that make absolutely zero logical sense happening and a lot of retconning and “rule of cool” filmmaking.
While I did end up enjoying End of Oak Street somehow, I still insist that JJ Abrams knows nothing about filmmaking and should never be allowed in a production office ever again.
True, but that whole era gave me Rogue 1 which was amazing, and so in my head the dogshit trilogy was worth it if just to have Rogue 1
And, by extension, Andor. But yeah, within context, Rise was really the crud lining the bottom of the IP barrel; so bad it actively erased any good or potential within the preceding two films and by itself managed to render the entire trilogy pointless. That's a unique level of bad even Gigli can't touch.
Yeah I just pretend those other movies don't exist, all we've gotten in the past 10 years is Rogue 1 and absolutely, I actually like Andor better than Mandalorian
The fact that they threw out and retconned the Yuuzhan Vong War, Mara Jade, her working for the Emperor and her redemption to the Light Side again and then starting a family with Luke Skywalker, the Second Galactic Civil War (which if they wanted to keep the Solos oldest going down the Sith path), the Republic Commandos (still very much salty about not getting a sequel to the game), and the Death Troopers story.
And what makes that all the more worst is that Luke kept THE FUCKING RULE THAT MADE HIS FATHER TURN TO THE DARK SIDE, when he revived the Jedi Order. And that he tried to kill his nephew in his sleep, which you know turned him to the Dark Side. And that is not really taking in account of the movies not being planned out, which makes the last one even worst considering the fucking meme of Palpatine somehow returning because the fucking writer for The Last Jedi had killed off what was suppose to be the big bad for the trilogy. And the fact that
the Mary SueRey had just assumed the name of Skywalker at the end of Rise of Skywalker, despite not being remotely related to them is just bad. And that they turned the only interesting character, Finn, into the punchline character and made John Boyega into not wanting to return to Star Wars after how Disney had treated his character. So from character assassination, poorly planned out trilogy, having a Mary Sue as the main character and sidelining the more interesting character for that less interesting Mary Sue (Rey was too skilled of a character right off the bat, especially for the background that they gave her in the movies).Literally the only good movies that Disney had made was Solo (which is a shame considering it bombed in the box office) and Rogue 1 (and by extension Andor).
This didn't happen. This was how it appeared from Ben's perspective, but it's not what happened.
Ben had been in a troubled state, with Snoke whispering in his ear, luring him to the dark side. Luke recognized this, and the situation got bad enough that Luke looked into Ben's mind to see what was really going on.
Luke then claims he saw the darkness in Ben had already taken hold, that Ben had already been turned by Snoke, and the evil he saw was unimaginable. Luke impulsively ignites his lightsaber for a moment, but immediately stops himself. But it's too late, Ben's already seen it, draws his own conclusions, and yes, that does push him over the edge.
(My take here -- Luke doesn't say this explicitly but it's pretty clear that for that brief moment, Luke stops seeing his nephew, and instead sees an evil, monstrous force threatening everything and everyone he loves. It's the exact same way that Vader triggered Luke's rage in ROTJ: Luke is calm and refuses to fight his father (who Luke believes still has good in him) up until the point where Vader threatens Luke's sister, and at that point Luke loses control.)
Luke is tormented by the fact that he reacted that way in that brief moment. Yes, he stopped himself, but he can't forgive himself for even having the thought, however briefly, and he is fully aware of how he failed Ben in that moment. And he knows Ben will never trust him again.
Personally, I think given the impulsiveness and emotions Luke exhibits throughout the OT, this is a plausible moment for the character, and the fact that he still lives with the trauma he experienced in eps 5 and 6 (his dad mutilating him, his dad threatening his sister, and his dad's boss torturing and nearly killing him) and that there are meaningful consequences for it is interesting.
tl;dr Luke did not "try" to kill his nephew. He absolutely could have if he actually wanted or intended to. He felt an impulse in an emotionally, traumatically charged moment but stopped himself.
Interesting. That's a character trait I never really thought about Luke, but compared to other Jedi, Luke and his dad were both very impulsive.
The only other Jedi we see in the OT are Obi Wan and Yoda, and they're both obviously very in control of their emotions, but they're also Jedi masters, and very old at that point, so you could summize that Luke is just being a normal young adult. In the prequels though, we see lots of other Jedi, and all of them are more in control of their emotions and less impulsive than Anakin obviously, it's pretty much hammered over your head the Anakin is impulsive and plays fast and loose with his emotions, but they're also more in control than Luke ever was.
It sort of makes Luke's character in TLJ a little more interesting, even though I still didn't like that movie and felt it did the character a disservice.
At this point, I can't even give a "yeah that's a fair point" to all the "this is Star Wars for a new generation" apologists. It's just unobjectively a horrible film. I actually watched it twice, for some unknown reason, and I can't tell you anything about it. It's just a void in my memory. Maybe I'll watch it again when I need to forget something, make it my own personal Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind Lacuna machine.
Hah, you're objectively right. I used the wrong word there - it was late (I think) and I was annoyed at having to remember how disappointed I was in TRoS. It sounded angrier in my head which is probably why I used it. Or it was left over from the essay I had originally typed, only to be replaced with the now posted few lines
In my opinion, this is the definitive answer. Most other bad movies are a standalone film or merely a mediocre entry in an otherwise good series, and may be from a less experienced filmmaker or a filmmaker trying something experimental, while TROS being a finale in a 40+ year long series means it retroactively makes many other films worse and that it comes from a studio that really should have known better.
It also contains what is likely the worst word of dialogue ever written.
...it's like, lucas gave us revenge of the sith to show just how bad star wars could get, and then disney said 'hold my beer'...
...i've actually cultivated a certain perverse affection for just how sincerely ham-fistedly bad lucas' prequels got and can enjoy their worst on that level, but i can't see myself ever mustering that same reaction to disney's cynically-manufactured pabulum...
Yeah, the prequels are kind of watchable even though they're bad. They're bad in a single man's dumb vision kind of way. I can appreciate that kind of bad.
I can't appreciate corporate slop full of executive meddling and with creative decisions driven by ROI calculations.
Also, I hate that the Disney sequels have given the zoomers that grew up with the prequels and are blind to how bad they are cover to hide behind.
I always hear from star wars fans that are between 20 and 30, things like "the prequels were amazing, not like the terrible Disney movies". They're both bad. Multiple things can be bad at the same time, to different degrees. The prequels don't have to be good for the Disney movies to be bad.
The prequels are good because I grew up with pod racing and that shit was cool as hell when you're 8.
Yes the prequels and the Disney movies can both be bad but this, now this is pod racing.
Whatever else you want to say about the cgi or the weird dialogue, but the prequels are where lightsaber combat became awesome.
Later in life I appreciated the choreography of the originals a bit more, as they more closely resemble real life swordplay, but again.. I was 8 during the prequels. Darth Maul showing up with that double light saber. Daaaamn son.
I think Phantom Menace is peak lightsaber. The original trilogy's lightsaber duels are competently executed, but they're basically normal movie swordfights with effects on top. TPM starts to really lean into the acrobatics and stuff. It looks choreographed in a way that the original trilogy doesn't (although obviously all these movies feature very detailed fight choreography), but all the characters involved are prescient—it should look choreographed.
Attack of the Clones features Yoda popping around doing backflips, and that's waaaaay too much. That was the point at which Star Wars jumped the shark for me. I was 14 at the time, and that was the first movie where I walked out of the theater thinking it was bad.
...red letter media said it best: who'd've guessed in 1999 that one day we'd look back and say that was the good one?..
Honestly, even though in the grand overall plot of the series, Episode 1 is completely unimportant, and nothing that happens in that movie is really of consequence, and you could skip the whole thing and not miss much... Podracing was legitimately cool and interesting, and that sequence was very well done, and the sound design is some of the best ever done not only in Star Wars, but in any sci fi movie.
I think Episode 1 may be the most enjoyable of the prequels because of interesting set pieces like the pod race and the duel of the fates battle.
I don't remember quite as many bland walking and talking sequences in that movie, and even though it has the most Jar Jar compared to the other two movies, they kept the overboard, ridiculously dated looking CGI spectical to a (relative) minimum. You still have really stupid scenes like the Jar Jar Mr. Magoo land battle and the Anakin Mr. Magoo space battle, but the movie didn't take itself too seriously and wasn't up its own ass as much as the other two were.
It also could have been because I was 12 when I saw it in theaters for the first time and thought it was legitimately the greatest film ever made when I saw it and for a few months afterwards.
...they're each bad in totally different ways, but at least lucas' prequels were mostly driven by sincere creative vision somewhere behind all that sycophantic patronisation and clumsy execution, which shines through at moments...
Revenge of the Sith has the best lightsaber battles by a mile. The worst parts are just General Grevious existing and Hayden Christianson being a really bad actor. It's a good Star Wars movie.
I very much disagree. The lightsaber duel was tedious, and every time I've seen it I've gotten bored halfway through. It's just way too long. Also, I think Hayden Christensen gets a bad rap in those movies. I don't actually know if he's a good actor or not because those movies sort of killed his burgeoning career and I've never seen him in anything else, but Ewan McGregor and Natalie portman are both excellent actors who were awful in those movies too, because they were given a terrible script, and their direction consisted of George lucas half assing it in front of a green screen.
How much can you really do with "I hate sand", and "From my point of view, the Jedi are evil!". Yes George, we know this opinion is from his point of view, because... he's the one that said it.
...i can't agree with that at all, but you're certainly entitled to your own take, as are we all...
I completely agree. I very rarely DNF a movie, and I’ve been a Star Wars fan for a long time, but I had to turn this off after 30 minutes. It was just so stupid. The characters non-stop sprinting from one location to the next felt like an ADHD fever dream, and it killed whatever love I had left for the franchise.
The Garbage Pail Kids Movie (1987) is garbage nonsense, unfortunately. It's based on an 80s toy, and it should be nostalgic for people of my demographic, but even when I tried to watch it almost 40 years ago I couldn't really get through it. It's not "so bad it's good" either, it's just terrible writing and utter nonsense.
Troll 2 (1990) is maybe worse. It makes less sense, has worse acting, and is meta-nonsensical, since it's not a sequel and doesn't feature any trolls. Some people do hold this to be "so bad it's good", but I find that pretty questionable; there are lots of schlocky B movies that I love, and this one is bad.
North (1994) is probably less bad, but it's one that hurts more, because it's made by a filmmaker that I love. Rob Reiner made some of my favourite movies, and there are things that I say and things that I believe because of the effect that his movies have had on my life. And he made North, which is definitely in the top 10 worst movies I have ever seen. I don't always agree with Ebert, but his review on North is spot on.
Battlefield Earth (2000) is L. Ron Hubbard Scientology apologia crap, but it's also poorly made. I haven't watched it in 20 years, but I remember feeling like the whole thing was dutch angles and cross wipes. The story was nonsense and the acting was worse; everything about this movie is garbage.
There are a few that I haven't seen, but that I know have a reputation for being absolutely terrible. Gigli, Catwoman,
Shallow Hal, a number of things like Date Movie, Movie 43, Remember the Spartans. I can't really say that these are bad because I haven't seen them, but I think they're pretty universally looked down on.Edit: I crossed out Shallow Hal above because it's not the movie I was thinking of when I was writing it out, but I no longer remember what I was actually thinking of.
They’re eating her and now they’re going to eat me! Oh my gooooddd!!!!
Troll 2 is totally a "so bad it's good" type of movie IMO.
I'd say that the 80s "Masters of the Universe" movie is really bad and could have a place on the list.
Also, perhaps the highly unfortunate sequel "Lawnmover Man 2: Beyond Cyberspace". I have no idea who greenlit that piece of trash.
I guess "so bad it's good" is a personal thing, and we're on opposite sides for Troll 2 and also Masters of the Universe, which I still enjoy, but mostly in a very nostalgic way.
I never watched the second Lawnmower Man, but I had the (fairly standard) visceral hate reaction to the first one. I still can't believe that they marketed it as "Stephen King's Lawnmower Man" for quite a while, and I had just gotten into King and his short stories when it was coming out so I was expecting something weird, and we got whatever that movie was supposed to be.
Oh, despite being essentially completely unrelated to the King short story, I liked the movie when it came out. The sequel is an abomination.
I don't remember disliking the movie as a movie per se, so it could very well be an acceptable one. I got pretty caught up with why it was called The Lawnmower Man and why it wasn't an absurdist horror with a guy who ate all the grass while naked and then killed the homeowner. I think it was the first time I got mad about how movies were advertised, or advertisements in general, and that stuck with me.
Meet the Spartans launched during the height of the spoof comedy movie era and I'm convinced it managed to kill the genre by itself. I was there with friends. We were in high school and juvenile humour was prime. Meet the Spartans had no redeemable qualities even then and we all agreed it was a bad movie.
If you can get teenagers to think your juvenile humour is boring you fucked up somewhere.
Damn, I forgot about all of those movies. Every one that came out seemed to be worse than the ones before it. The jokes were more and more surface level and stupid as they went on.
The only somewhat decent gag I remember from meet the Spartans was the fat Spartan getting his six-pack makeup applied, but I remember it was so heavily promoted as part of the movie, and I'm pretty sure that exact same bit had been done in multiple places by then that by the time the movie came out, it was sort of meh.
I will take your word for it. I don't mean that dismissively, I mean that because the film was so forgettable I genuinely do not remember any detail whatsoever. None.
Truly one of the films of all time.
Gigli is a terrible movie, but anybody serious about film should watch it at least once.
I'm curious why you have Shallow Hal in the list of worst movies ever. I've only heard of people thinking it was just fine, but not absolute dog shit.
Actually, I don't think that's the movie I was really thinking of when I wrote this out, based on a my just now IMDB lookup of that movie; I definitely wasn't thinking of Jack Black and Gwyneth Paltrow when I wrote it down. But I don't remember exactly what I was thinking either.
I can speak to this one. I found the blu-ray cheap and decided to get it out of curiosity about its reputation.
The entire movie is a series of comedy sketches tied together with a framing story of a man pitching them to a film executive. The comedy ranges from bad to meh (although I'm sure some will say that "skit XYZ was actually funny") and spans everything from slapstick to cringe/taboo. All the sequences were written and directed by different people, so there is no coherent throughline and no returning characters except in the framing story, which the movie itself kneecaps halfway through. It really feels like a bunch of 10-minute YouTube videos stitched together.
I've heard that there are two different versions of this movie. Maybe we watched different versions, or maybe I'm exceptionally immature, but the parts I can remember were hilarious (specifically the part with Emma Stone).
Yeah, there is a second cut of the movie. I'm not sure which one I watched, so I can't comment on the differences. There are a handful of good jokes (the kids trapped in the fax machine is another one), but they wear out their welcome over the course of an entire movie.
The trailer for the Garbage Pail Kids is indeed terrible! Those suites are creepy as fuck, and not in a cool horror way but in a this-movie-sucks way.
I love when I see Battlefield Earth on these lists because I somehow convinced my dad to take me to see it when I was 11 years old. I think I just selected it based off the poster in the lobby and he went with it knowing nothing about what was coming our way. I don't remember much about the movie apart from loving it and thinking Barry Pepper's character was really cool. I also remember my dad being noticably frustrated throughout the movie and shocked when I told him I liked it. Normally he was the type of person to let kids enjoy what they enjoy, but he spent the ride home trying to explain to me why the movie was bad.
Ok, but battlefield Earth is kind of great as a comedy. I regularly quote the "we've decided not to keep you here for a other 5 cycles.......but for another Fifty cycles! With endless options for renewal endless options for renewal endless options for renewal..................................hahahahahahha" it's just so goddamn goofy
This isn't by any means one of the worst of all time, but it did piss me off so badly after watching that I went into Plex to change the description to TERRIBLE FILM (I would have deleted it but I downloaded it for someone else).
Honey Don't!
The story is utterly nonsensical, and it's looking like Ethan Coen isn't really able to make a decent film without his brother (and vice versa, from what I've heard but I haven't seen any of Joel's solo projects).
Aubrey Plaza and Margaret Qualley are fine in it, it's the story that sucks. Even my gay ass couldn't find something redeemable, and I have watched some TRASH just for queer scenes.
Oh yeah this is a a big stinker. I love a noir but what in the fuck was the ending of this movie.
I know a lot of people will disagree, but I personally really dislike Zoolander and Elf. I like a lot of other silly comedies, but these 2 I just can’t stand.
Wow, I feel so seen and validated. I don't really like Will Ferrell or Ben Stiller in most of their comedies, and sometimes I really feel so alone, but most of the early to mid 2000s comedy in that style just doesn't do it for me. I do like Will Ferrell in Stranger Than Fiction though.
Some of these actors are better in more serious roles. Stranger Than Fiction was good. I liked Ben Stiller in The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, for example.
Glad you felt seen! There are dozens of us. Dozens!! I'm glad I posted. I knew I can't be the only one. Funny story, in those days I was looking for a summer job and tried the local movie rental place (not Blockbuster, but similar). Being young and clueless about how interviews work, I thought I would sound qualified if I talked about some obscure titles and even said Zoolander was bad. The guys said "a lot of people like that movie." I did not get the job. So there you go! Zoolander is not only a bad movie, it is a bad movie that cost me a potential summer job! Rot in hell, Zoolander!
I'm with you on Ben Stiller - I hate all of the Focker movies and most everything else with him. Secret Life of Walter Mitty gets a pass though but pretty much everything else I've always felt so uncomfortable watching him.
I can't remember him being interesting or funny except for The Royal Tenenbaums and Tropic Thunder. Even those the films were mostly carried by the other actors.
He can make a mean story though, Severance is a banger.
On a purely technical level, Neil Breen's Double Down is the worst movie I've ever seen, and it's not even close. The writing is so bad that I struggle to even use the word "writing". It's legitimately impressive that someone was able to write a script this nonsensical. It's more akin to art house, which was clearly not the intention. There's no way to describe how bad the writing is. You just need to watch it to know.
I'd say about half of the runtime is filled with stock footage or B-roll with voiceover. I think there are two or three scenes in the entire movie in which two characters have a conversation in the same shot. The rest of the dialogue cuts between centered headshots of the characters against flat blue sky.
Neil Breen himself (and his godlike self-insert character) seems to have all the confidence in the world that this is a Very Good Movie.
I actually had the idea recently to make a randomizer script to re-cut the movie in an entirely random order. I'm pretty sure the viewing experience would be essentially unchanged, and that's hardly an exaggeration.
Agreed. There is something...special about those movies.
What is good however are the Space Ice reviews of these terrible movies. The reviews are comedy gold.
Thanks for the rec! I hadn't heard of Space Ice
In my opinion, the 00s "spoof" movies. I love good spoof movies, like the classics Hot Shots! and The Naked Gun, and the first Scary Movie was actually decent, but then it went completely off rails and stupidly unfunny with the likes of Extreme Movie, Epic Movie, Disaster Movie, Not Another Teen Movie, Date Movie and all the Scary Movie sequels.
I mostly agree with you, I have some affinity for the spoof movies cause I was a kid as they were coming out.
But I think Not Another Teen Movie is really funny. I have a trashy sense of humor though, so the incest jokes and gags like these kill me
Honestly can’t tell them apart as they sort of blur together, but since that is from 2001, it likely was one of the better ones before the trend was ruined.
They also kept making them with lower and lower budgets as years went on. They became more enjoyable because they became worse. I seem to remember a fast and furious one that came out circa 2020 that I enjoyed.
The Room. I hadn't even heard of it, until I was bait and switched during a movie night at my fraternity. The guy running it said we were watching Forest Gump that week and one of the other guys and I popped a big bowl of popcorn for it. The other guy left as he knew what the movie was. I stayed and watched that awful so bad it's good movie unfold with ~20 other guys, most of whom hadn't seen it. I also got to eat most of that popcorn myself which was a win as it's one of my favorite snacks!
Is it bad that it's probably one of my most-watched movies? Given the number of movies I've ever watched, I wouldn't even be surprised if it's in the top 1% for me. I just enjoy almost everything about it. I've showed it to so many people, usually without warning lol
I wouldn't say it's bad. The movie is terrible, but it was also hilarious to watch as I didn't think it would be so bad and watching someone else's first time reaction to it would also be fun. Especially entering the second sex scene. So many of us were confused and thought we were tripping when it was the exact same scene from before.
I know I've watched probably the first ~5 episodes of Cowboy Bebop more than any other anime as it is a great introduction to anime and something I've used to introduce my friends to. Though I've been needing to do a full rewatch for a while now since I haven't seen the later parts and the movie in a decade at this point.
Ahh i hadnt thought about this fact but i might be in the same boat. I even went and saw the bob odenkirk version thats been airing selectively because friends wanted to see it 🤦♂️
How was it? I've been wanting to see it since it was first announced.
It was pretty fun. they highlighted the silliest parts of the movie, shortened it, cast some people that really understood their roles. Your enjoyment is really dependent on whether you like the acting style though because there really is nothing else to focus on. Its all on a green screen with a blurry/mood setting background so dont expect spoons hiding off in corners or things like that. We all had a pretty good time though. Bob Odenkirk actually showed up to the one i went to and watched it for the first time with everyone and it was a good time with everyone laughing together but not being... excessive, like at regular Room screenings. Id recommend it if you want to see the room distilled and have an hour to burn.
The room is a train wreck moving in slow motion :D
When a work mate suggested me to watch it because it was "the worst movie ever"I considered it a challenge.
Anyway... it was terrible from the beginning to the end, the acting was simply horrible. There are a couple of actors that here and there land a line in the right way (maybe...?) but the lead actor and his girlfriend couldn't act should their lives depended on that.
But... somehow... it grows on you. It's the cinematic version of eating some really bad trash food. Intoxicating :)
p.s. you should check "the disaster artist" btw, a mockumentary about the production of "the Room" :)
The entire Avatar series.
Copypasta plots, bad acting, with fancy visuals that get real old real quick. If you told me they were AI generated youtube specials, I'd be more impressed. Utter trash.
I feel that putting Avatar 1 in the same category as the other movies in the "series" is not fair.
The original Avatar was not followed by a sequel for over a decade. The sequels are generic garbage, I will give you that much (I walked out of the second one and have not seen the third), but the context of the first movie was different. The alien planet VFX were special for their time and were praised for being the first to bring an alien world to the screen in such a vivid way (also, the 3D release for theaters was defining for that whole technology).
While the story of the first movie is predictable and meh, to me, the movie as a whole is redeemed by its technological and cultural context.
I saw the original in 3D in theaters, it got old quickly and the story was just Ferngully in space. 3D is dead, so all it did was launch a fad. It was a leap in CGI, but little more and one can argue that increased CGI isn't a good thing.
I’m not even sure I can agree that it was a leap in CGI. Certainly it was a lot more CGI, based on CGI screen time, but I don’t think it’s better/more realistic CGI than Davey Jones and the crew of the Flying Dutchman (Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest), despite Avatar arriving three years later.
But maybe I’m personally biased because I love the POTC movies so much.
Thank you for saying this.
I came out of the first one feeling like I was the craziest person on the planet for not liking it at all. I don't care about the VFX: it's blue Pocahontas with flying dinosaurs big whoop -- the story and dialog were so bad that I never felt immersed into that world the way even plain text on a page could. Everything felt so 1-Dimensional and plasticine my eyes couldn't even "see" the amazing VFX.
Avatar was an animated film in 2009.
Shinkai Makoto's Voices Of A Distant Star was 2002 on a shoestring budget that was truly groundbreaking in what computers could do at the time. The trailer shows the kids using not even smart phones: but it was a much more believable and visually stunning different world. In 2001, we've also already had Final Fantasy the Spitis Within. For mix of live action, LOTR was 2001-2003: we already know puppets, textured costumes, detailed sets, clever cameras, mo-cap plus some CGI can build an epic. Avatar, on just visuals, felt incremental and hence inconsequential to me. A huge step down, even: the animals looked so plastic compared to Jackson's Nazgul.
As for 3D: from wiki, Avatar was well behind Kung Fu Panda (2008), Ratatouille (2007), Chicken Little (2005) and a hundred other Science Centre shorts. By 2009, 3D is a little kids gimmick.
I've found my people. I didn't get the hype at all, even with 3D. Then again, I can't do 3D, so I didn't have that to distract me from the plot.
I was also weirded out by the hair connection thing, since they apparently use it sexually, but also on the animals they fly around on. And I didn't hear anyone else mention that. It haunts me.
Don't be traumatized by the hair thing, it's merely a lazy writer's device as a stand in for assumed empathy between sexual partners, as well as between white saviour master and enslaved native wildlife.
I tried to watch third one and l had to stop after 3 minutes, maybe l wasn't in the mood but it gave me the creeps.
I was part of a club where we watched bad movies and made a rough ranking of them. We got through over 100 together. The point was to find movies that were so bad they're good, but that can be like seeking out a diamond in the rough.
There were several movies that were just boring, had unbearable sound effects (Looking at you, A Zombie Croc,) etc. But, from our perspective, two of the worst movies we watched were:
There have only been two movies I've ever walked out of the theater and demanded my money back.
One was The Force Awakens, at a theater that had it cranked about 30db too high, to the point that the dialog was painfully loud and crackling the speakers. Left within 15 minutes after it was clear they weren't going to dial it down. Saw it later in another theater and it was fine, so confirmed this was just a shit theater.
The other though, that was Independence Day:Resurgence. Got 40 minutes in and noped out.
I've seen countless bad and mediocre movies, but none so painfully annoying as that one. This review says it all:
Moviefreak
This is my answer too. That movie was downright terrible. Only time I have ever walked out of a theater feeling like I had been ripped off.
I don’t think it was terrible. It just felt more like it was a fan movie of what it was supposed to be a sequel of.
Which is what every sequel is when it comes out decades later.
Sex and the City 2 was pretty awful, it's specially painful to see when you remember how good the first season of the show was.
I also disliked it for numerous reasons: it was an ad for Dubai; SJP feels mean to Kim Cattrall; the dialogue was pretty awful in many places; the characters are really flat caricatures of themselves.
I've never liked Carrie. But in this one she especially embodies everything I hate about selfish male protagonists in harem anime. That was the last of anything I watched for the franchise.
The worst movie I paid to go see was Mom and Dad Save the World. All I remember is the trailer had dog creatures with spears that looked a lot like the enemies in the original Zelda so pre-teen me just had to go see it. I had never been more disappointed in a movie.
The worst movie I was ever dragged to go see was one a family member took me to. I knew it wasn't going to be good but 2016: Obama's America made me lose faith in humanity and all my faith in my family's basic cognitive functionality.
If you want to see truly awful movies, independent/low budget horror will be the way to go. I love a ton of indie horror films, but it's also probably the genre with the highest concentration of unwatchable trash.
My personal pick would be a movie called Hellinger, which no one should ever watch, but other examples are Things, Feeders, The Galaxy Invader, Meat Cleaver Massacre (there is no meat cleaver in the film), etc.
I love a terrible movie if it's funny, but these movies are mostly just boring and confusing. The type of film that makes you sort of resent the thought that anyone would want to watch it.
I agree, actually terrible movies aren't ones you've heard of.
The only two movies that I have seen and consciously thought "this is very, very bad" while watching are Jurassic World and Disclosure Day.
Jurassic World is... I don't even know, it left my brain as I was watching it. The most boring, surface level movie I have seen.
I could write a whole essay on why Disclosure Day is terrible. I'd almost suggest that you watch it just so that you can undestand just how bad it is, but it's so bad that I would be doing you a disservice to ernestly reccomend that. The short version is that you learn the 'secret' of the movie about 40 minutes in, and then the big reveal at the end is just that same information again. Bad bad bad movie.
Personally disagree with Disclosure Day, though I've seen numerous reviews express similar sentiments (and my mom hated the ending). From my perspective, the movie was about the journey to expose the truth to the world rather than just the secret itself. I was actually pretty breathless at the climax, felt like how it could actually go down.
It unnecessarily dragged on quite a bit though. It may have left a better impression on people if it wasn't 2 and a half hours, my mom's annoyance was that it seemed to have all this buildup for "nothing" in her eyes.
I'm glad you saw it of your own accord because...
Spoilers... and more complaining.
I thought it was a huge copout to not have the aliens actually say something at the end of the movie. Especially given that the "getting the news out on all TV stations at the same time, which will make everyone believe it" is... impossible. Both because that's not how TV stations work, and because people are absolutely not going to trust that kind of information.
The scene in the global newsroom (???) at the end where someone says, "is this AI?", then someone else presses the detect AI button and replies "no, these are source pixels!" nearly made me laugh out loud in the theatre. I suspect this movie would have been much better if it was set in the 80s or 90s, when most people watched free-to-air TV and video manipulation was less common.
There was a lot of build up with the religious subplot and the alien-power-stone-things (I absolutely loved the set-up at the very start where the main guy is able to walk free from abduction just becuase he has the stone in his hand. Having the heavily armed bad guys immediately concede was a great way to show off its potential power), that I was astounded when... none of it was actually explained, especially in a move that was about "finally learning the truth about the aliens". I think the main reason I dislike it so much was that I could see the potential at the start. It feels like Speilberg wanted to make three different alien movies, spent the whole runtime setting up the plot threads for them, then ran out of time and money before any of them could be resolved.
However, I applaud the confidence required to make the aliens just straight-up scifi greyliens.
I enjoyed Jurassic World as a dumb, fan service-y movie, but I know it was poorly-written and bad all around. The T-Rex coming to save the day was verrrry predictable, but still exciting in the theater.
Jurassic World: Dominion, the second one, was absolutely AWFUL, on the other hand. Like every moment was disgustingly terrible.
I have no affinity for the Jurassic Park movies so I never got any of the fanservice elements. I was also watching at home, so I may have been in the worst possible viewing context for the movie.
Dinosaurs are cool 🤷
Any Uwe Boll movie. I see that name, it's an automatic pass after seeing what he did with Alone in the Dark and House of the Dead.
Eh, it’s difficult to sufficiently answer this because I feel like the worst movies in the world are just extremely bland and mediocre. I’d almost rather HATE something than have no feelings towards it.
With that said, some of the movies I’ve given the lowest ratings to on my Letterboxd include:
There’s honestly so many
I went to see this with a family member, then another dud (can't remember), then we went and saw Rise of Skywalker. After Rise he said "I really want to see [insert movie name] when it comes out this summer, I would appreciate it if you didn't come because I don't want it to suck". Haven't gone with him to the movies since.
What a strange thing to say out loud; not surprised at all when you ended that movie going) relationship.
I would actually find it an extremely funny comment, just because of the absurdity of such a statement.
Right? :) How much of a main character syndrome would someone have to have to feel like their choice of movie companion can alter the outcomes of a millions of dollars project completed months ago? And then to say it out loud. Surely it was said in a "ha ha I'm had joking" manner
It reads like he was joking! I’ve both said and heard similar comments in similar situations before, it’s a silly thing.
Ya, he is a very awkward person to begin with so keep that in mind. Also he had brough up Alita: Battle Angel and I mentioned that I had actually gone to see that in theaters by myself.
Addressing the comments from @caliper and @alp, he was sort of joking but also serious at the same time.
How did you get roped into seeing a five-movie series where you hated every one?
Uh I didn’t really go to the movies regularly until 2019 and I made it a point to try and watch as many things as I could, which is why I watched a lot of bad movies that year. I’ve since become more picky.
But to actually answer your question, After is a franchise that I find fascinating in the sense that they basically kept greenlighting new movies despite bad (or nonexistent) performance from the movie they were currently releasing. It was really bizarre to me. Plus I noticed that the audiences I was with seemed to largely feel similarly to me - that these movies were kinda unintentionally funny by how bad they are. Granted, not enough that I’d recommend it to anyone, but still.
I’m kinda convinced the franchise was some money laundering operation tho or something.
Aw, I really wanted this to be good and then I forgot about it cause I guess it was so bad no one talked about it.
Megalopolis is a great film, just not for most people.
It's strange and uncanny. If you're a theater nerd you will adore how its written, dialogue and all, to be akin to a roman epic, or a Shakespearean play (especially the dialogue!) I strongly believe it will be a cult classic and talked about far into the future. It's a critique on current society, built within the ideas of a classical play.
This movie is not particularly a great first-viewing, its confusing, its all over the place, things and characters make little sense, but on a second viewing you learn that many of the scenes are out of order, on purpose, and that its actually part of the story that you only figure out on a second viewing! Even with this 'spoiler' you won't understand what I mean until a second viewing.
Many characters you may have thought were pointless, or unremarkable, turn out to be scheming or being used in the (literal) background. It brings the movie to a whole new meaning and understanding, every time I introduce someone to it, I notice something new and different. I saw this movie three times in theatres, and about another six times since just showing people the insanity. No one has enjoyed it, unless they watch it a second time, but they do think about it and bring it up to me weeks later.
I adore this film, I see the problems, but the vision is so creative and wonderful.
One thing to note: This is an alt-history where the USA was not founded in North America, but in Italy, with the original thirteen colonies being the thirteen kingdoms of Italy (as there were in real history, c. 1862 before the reunification of Italy). Now, we are in the modern era, and 'New Rome' is what our 'New York' would have been as history has followed nearly identical lines, just in a different place, with different prior history. They don't talk about this. I don't even know if the Wikipedia mentions this, but it helps make it make sense. The USSR still exists, satellites exist, media and entertainment is the same, it's scifi, its fantasy, its mythology, its banal, its modern, its antique, its high-tech, its both historical and the future, all at the same time. It's an incredibly strange film.
I strongly suggest everyone watch it, even just to see how insane this film is. He spent $100M of his own money to make a film he spent 40+ years writing, and then let the actors (theatre kids) go nuts on changing it in production.
OH its weird! I see. Thats why I wanted to see it, I’ll give it a shot
No, it's just bad. Waste of time. Trying to twist your brain around into thinking it's actually secretly good is akin to attempting the same with Cloud Atlas.
It sounds like someone is trying to insinuate that Cloud Atlas is a bad movie, but I can’t believe that anyone would consider joking about something like that.
Someone else has already mentioned Megalopolis, so I'd pick The Blood Beast Terror: an extremely cheap 60s horror film that Peter Cushing thought was the worst thing he ever starred in.
It's incredibly dull. The story, characters, the way it's shot, there's just nothing of interest in it. There's a scene of a play with intentional bad acting that's honestly no worse than the rest of the film. Most scenes contribute little to the story, and ultimately Peter Cushing, playing a detective, saves the day by having other people do the work for him while he just talks about fishing.
My favourite goof is ~2/3 of the way in, when some member of the production team wanders into the centre of the shot by mistake and hides behind a hedge.
You should watch it a second time.
I'll have to pass on that. I saw it at release, and it's a film I really hate for a lot of reasons. It buys into the idea decadence is what made the Roman Empire fall, and when you push that onto the contemporary USA Coppola comes up with Shia LeBeouf's character: an incestuous transvestite Nazi whose followers are immigrants.
There's a scene where the city is damaged by a Soviet satellite, with a big focus on the iirc hammer and sickle on it, as a hamfisted one-note scene about the lurking danger of communism I guess.
Of course women are treated terribly. Of the two I remember, one is portrayed as an evil seductress and the other gives up on her dreams and personality to have babies with Adam Driver.
It's ultimately this big great man theory thing where the common people just don't understand Adam Driver's beautiful future where instead of houses people will live in glowing flowers. The richest man ever realises that he's enabled the fall of society and murders the evil seductress and the transphobic caricature at the last minute, saving the day.
I'm not a fan of any of this, to say the least. OP said to leave off Birth of a Nation style films, which is the main reason I didn't bring it up.
Not really, it's more a telling of the fall of american empire, the only real 'link' to a story about the roman empire, is that it takes place in what is known as Italy, and it takes roman aesthetics. If you wanted to link it to a telling of the roman empire falling, they made it very clear it was due to failures of the government to continually build and improve proper public infrastructure for the people , which is true. The movie is radically leftist in a lot of ways.
He wasn't trans* or anything in that realm - That was made rather clear early on that he was just someone who enjoyed the spotlight and loved "shocking" the media for publicity (like "leaking" that he and his sisters were all in a sexual relationship together).
He used his only 'fame' as a rich kid to gain political power and say what "the people wanted to hear" to gain power. He is the caricature of trump, or perhaps a vancian character, his followers were spartans who wore red hats and attacked the people, killing people, and even his character who was just doing it for the money was appalled by the murders that his followers eventually took to, and even begged them to stop before he too was strung up and nearly killed by them.
He gave an entire speech at the very start that he didn't believe in what he was saying, he just knew it was the best way to gain power and fame and money. Casting Shia was a mistake, certainly, but he is quite literally a trumpian character and not supposed to be viewed in a positive light. Additionally, there is some ironic commentary to be said that his followers hated immigrants, even though they were immigrants.
Yes, but that satellite crashing actually gave them the ability to build their new (socialist) world from devastated sections of the city, [spoiler] but you don't realize that the main character can see the future until the second watch and that he sees that the satellite is going to fall, and that he used his authority of the design committee to purposefully evacuate and demolish all residential buildings before the satellite fell, so that the causalities never happened as no one was in the area. It is even remarked how incredible it was that very few people were ever hurt even though the satellite took out a fourth of New Rome. The tip to the soviet satellite is more like "hey you're in an alternate universe where the USSR still exists and is successful", IIRC they mention that the USSR is willing to help guide the satellite into safer areas, but the government didn't want their help since it wasn't going to effect them as they decided it wasn't going to land in their country.
The 'evil seductress' Aubrey Plaza, quite literally uses her charm and ability (as a lowly) to control the richest people in the city, so that she can take the money from them, and give it to the infrastructure project and dreams of her ultimate love - the main character (Adam Driver) where he is wanting to create a post-work, automated, socialist republic.
Her character development did fall a bit flat, but it was very clear from the start that her father (the antagonist) was against her marrying him, that she was to marry someone she disliked, and that he wanted her to follow in his political footsteps even though she was studying to be an engineer. She wanted to build a new world, and in the very next scene met and began falling in love with Adam Driver, and helped design and build the new world with him. She didn't give up her purpose, from the very start she was arguing with her father that they should build parks, or libraries, or hospitals, and not a flashy casino. Who was against the casino and wanted the same thing? The main character she fell in love with (and he with her, even moreso).
No? The richest man ever realized that she was only after his money, never loved him, and up until the moment he dies, he believes that the main character is the worst person. He at the end decided to give all his money anyway, she died trying to protect herself and her lovers project, and he still ended up giving all the money to it anyway. It's a fun story where the end is the same either way, and the trumpian character who caused his followers to nearly murder her love (that he regrets), while he was also scheming against her to take his uncles money (by killing him as well) to destroy the main characters project.
It was a three-way scheme, where only the rich banker was the one in love with the other who didn't, and all three of them died anyway, and the money ended up going to the infrastructure project anyway.
The movie isn't great, atleast on a single watch, but its certainly different than what you are describing. It anything, the entire movie is overwhelmingly leftist. It is partially all about decadence, as you mentioned, but its above all about a government that caters to the media and spectacle and themselves than the infrastructure of the people.
Not going to argue on the 'great man theory' thing, but I do believe it works - because that's principally how stories are told, but this one has a 'great idea man' and a lot of political undercurrents and movements to make that dream of success - even the great man himself was pointed out to be rather fucked up, loved drugs, was incredibly depressed (the movie even starts with him trying to kill himself), was a hedonist, etc, etc. So he wasn't a 'great man' he was just a great idea guy, where everything worked out, because for some reason, the gods of the underworld granted him the ability to see the future (and the material of the future) because they had taken his wife who may or may not be the living embodiment/vessel of a roman god.
I think you're focusing on narrative justifications for symbolic decisions and thus missing the forest for the trees. Shia LaBeouf plays a perverted crossdresser who leads the downfall of society; do you think this is a coincidence? Is there a maligned group of people who are perhaps accused of being this very thing Shia represents?
When an American city is destroyed by a Soviet satellite (which lands hammer and sickle intact), do you think this is purely a worldbuilding detail or is there a rather unsubtle message about socialism?
Adam Driver plays a Great Man, an unmatched inventor, artist, architect, and visionary, a true pioneer who would fix the whole world if only everybody just listened to him. This is a very common libertarian ideal; he's just John Galt.
In his interactions with women, he has his fridged wife who dies before it starts, his mistress whose sole motivation is that she loves him, his new wife who has a baby and then stops having opinions, and the singer who falsely accuses him of rape. Do you think this film portrays women as real people who exist independently of men? Is this a film that respects and treats women well? Might Coppola be making a statement about how he sees cancel culture as women tearing down powerful men? Could this sentiment be reflected in the film's casting of Shia LaBeouf?
It's fine to think about a film's story and piece it together but you can't forget that these are all intentional choices made by Francis Ford Coppola. I'd call the embrace of libertarian idealism and the dismissal of common people as Nazi immigrants (I'm not convinced Coppola knows anything about Nazis) a right-wing stance rather than a left-wing one.
Considering that the satellite crashes and allows them to create a world free of crony capitalism, where no one has to work through automation, everyone has a place to live, and they live within organic homes, where "everyone can have a home and no one must be homeless", I would say that is not a capitalistic-positive film. The entire film is about the warts and cancer that is capitalism, media, and wealth.
This is just 'he's the main character' sort of thing who was bestowed upon the gift of being able to see the literal future and being given the elixir/material of construction from the gods for having his wife taken back to the world of the gods.
His wife wasn't fridged, she was taken back to the underworld for being about to give birth to a half-human-half-god, which in classical roman mythology is a huge thing to not ever let happen. She was a god/angel who was stuck in purgatory for her love for him and the mortal plane. His mistress (not really a mistress though, more like an ex-girlfriend) doesn't really love him, she loves power and the media, which is why she was a sensationalist media journalist, the spotlight, and with her lover in the spotlight and able to have the literal gift of seeing the future and making time stop, she sees him as the best way for ultimate power. His wife doesn't stop having opinions? It is very clear she helped define quite a lot about his design and usage of the material, and that she was a leading member of the design team even when they began courting and after. I am truly not sure how you see her character arc as anything but her standing for her own opinions, against her father, against her mother, against even her husband. The singer never said he raped her, she was a pop star whose whole thing was "she was a teenage virgin", well turned out she wasn't a teenager (25), nor a virgin, and the video that was leaked and broadcasted with her with Adam Driver was consensual, that was the entire thing - the fakeness that is the concept of 'virginity' and how selling it to the public is a lie, worthless, and demeaning to others.
The movie is about media, appearances, and the abuse of the wealth of power, how the most powerful aim for power and control over the needs of the people.
Considering the fault of 'who' tore down all these people is the people themselves, not women, even Shia's character was about his want and needs for power and spectacle and power led directly to him starting a movement he didn't truly believe in, caused death and carnage that he didn't approve of, and led directly to his death, is a rather apt indictment that 'being cancelled' laid not at the hands of women, but on the people who perpetrated the obscenities.
The entire movie was about how the rich and powerful neglect the people and their needs, and how they should be removed so that the people can have infrastructure, care, leadership that actually helps the people, and not the rich.
The only people who were the 'nazi' immigrants were the red-hatted (MAGA) spartans, and it was clear they were just an incredibly violent, loud, minority of people, not all common people. They were such a minority that there were counter-protests throughout the film that dwarfed them at events. I saw them more a commentary as "practically all of are are immigrants here in america, and yet even while we are immigrants, many of us have a grotesque ironic hatred for those that came after us as immigrants".
I feel like we have seen entirely different films, again if you have this much to say and think about the film, then you should watch it a second time - the movie is very quite different than what you are describing.
Again: This is why I believe this movie is going to be a cult classic and have a long lifetime, it has a lot of moving parts and a lot of discussions may be borne from it. It's interesting to try to see the movie on first watch to what you took from it, in fact I thought the same on many topics on the first watch.
Maybe my standard is too lax but after a couple of embarrasing attempts at making home videos with friends back during school days, anyone that can get their films released are admirable to me, no matter how schlocky, or formulaic, or pretentious. The fact you've heard of them means at least enough people liked them to begin with. Think about the ones that couldn't get people to make them or didn't reach any meaningful audience, and imagine how bad they must have been.
Instead of bad movies, I'd like to recommend some good stories about bad movies: The Disaster Artist which is about the making of The Room. If you don't mind comics, there's also Goodbye Eri, story about a kid who made a movie so bad he was bullied by the whole school, who then vowed to make another one as payback.
One of the worst movies I've personally seen was the 2002 remake of Rollerball. I don't remember much about it, but I do remember two things: 1) it was in the news as the worst box office flop in a long time, 2) it was the first date I ever took a girl on. We were in 7th grade and I think my mom dropped us off and picked us up. I have no idea why or how we picked that movie.
Worst movie I've ever seen was FDR: American Badass.
You'd think from the trailer that this is going to be a hilarious B movie spoof of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's life and presidency where he fights Nazi werewolves on a heavily armed wheelchair.
In actuality, it was horribly scripted, overly raunchy to the point where each scene dragged on for way too long because they were full of crude jokes, and much of it just wasn't funny.
I nominated it for a film night some friends were doing. We didn't even last 30 minutes until we had to switch it off.
No one on here better mention "The Holy Mountain", I know someone likely will, but that is truly one of the greatest films ever made.
If you want one that is rather known, and absolutely a bad movie, then Cannibal Holocaust (1980). I love gore, death, and the macabre in my films, but this movie is so poorly made, so poorly edited, so poorly everything that its incredible anyone even made it though five minutes to even get to the egregious points to create an entire mythology around the film (and where the director had to prove in court with the actors physically there that no one was murdered!). It's just a damn horrible film.
Once in a while I watch truly awful movies, most (all?) of them in those FAST streamings. I saw two this year so far that I think belongs here:
The world is full of really bad movies. They are just not so easy to find.
Jury Duty (starring Pauly Shore) is easily the worst movie I've ever seen.
This is the only movie I've seen where I wanted my money back, and I saw it at a second-run theatre and only paid $1.50.
This is the only movie I was mad I had to sit through (my girlfriend-now-wife drove) and I wanted my two hours back.
Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter
Yes, it's a B movie, it might be satire idk, I couldn't get through even 30mins. It's obviously low budget, like college project level, but I could not find any redeeming qualities and we quickly turned it off, my cousin had gotten it out of some bargain bin based on the name alone and even campy-ness could not save it.
Wow! I forgot about that shit terd. It really is god awful. Thank you.
For me it has to be Fool's Paradise (2023) by Charlie Day. I'm a big fan of Charlie Day and It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia but man this movie is terrible. I have never thought about walking out of a theater during a movie but I really wanted to while watching this. Day's directing was fine and the cinematography was alright but the story has no substance. It's another movie about Hollywood itself but it doesn't really bring anything new to the genre nor does the story do anything to grab your attention. It's just characters in various situations loosely strung together and it all just sort of ends.
The 1975 movie "Rollerball" starring James Caan is having a small moment right now: The original reason many critics eyerolled it (It didn't seem realistic that we would ever live in a world where corporations scan/summarize books... Steal content from 1000s if creators and then burn them... Too "preachy") seems downright prescient in 2026.
It's 2002 remake however, which removed all the social commentary: easily the worst movie ever made.
I've heard Melania was a tone deaf self congratulatory dumpster fire but I'll never watch it to find out.
Manos the Hands of Fate 1966 - IMDB user reviews give it 1.7 stars - I had a friend who loved this movie when we were growing up. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060666/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0_tt_8_nm_0_in_0_q_Manos%20the%20hands
Psychomania ( later renamed The Death Wheelers 1972) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067630/- a boring drive-in movie about a biker gang and the leader figures out how to come back from the dead. So after he kills himself, the gang buries him in a grave on his bike. He comes back to life and jumps the bike out of the grave. It's the only thing that happens in the movie that isn't boring as fuck. I got it at a pawn shop for 50 cents.
Cemetery Man -1994, way better than the other movies I have listed, is an Italian film. They stole the epic high point of Psychomania. But they one upped it. The motorcycle launches out of the grave and flies over the moon.
Hell Comes to Frogtown 1998- starring pro wrestler Roddy Piper. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093171/?ref_=fn_t_1 After a nuclear war, a group of men try to free a group of women from humanoid frogs, so they can repopulate the Earth.
Anything I suggest and eagerly watch with my gf apparently.
Hands down, Fateful Findings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFgQ34b96_U
tried watching "You Don't Mess with the Zohan" with my wife as a goof and we couldn't get through it. it is in the zone of terrible but not terrible enough that it becomes funny again. i challenge anyone to make it the whole way through.
That movie will also be forever memorable to me, but not because it was particularly good or bad. It was the first movie I made out to. 😺
I've been eyeing this thread over a couple of days because I've seen some pretty awful films, but I'm hard pressed to remember the specifics of any of them. I think what places them in this category for me is that they're dull, trite and largely unremarkable. I can delight in the perfect storm of incompetence that results in a catastrophe like Birdemic while the stuff I regret watching is probably just mediocre.
I think what comes to mind first is awful sequels to sci-fi horror films. Something like Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem or Species IV.